Most trustworthy ?

[John1.12]

My scriptures say the same about yours. Buddhist scriptures tells of a creator god (who actually created this earth) to have fallen under the spell of Mara (the deceiving angel) who feigns to serve at this God's court and is deceived into thinking of himself as the supreme being. So Buddha had to ascend to the heavens to counter this. The interesting thing here is that in the Bible, the Satan is actually at the court of YhWh and appears to work for him too (at least till Jesus's time when he is expelled or something). So it is quite possible that YhWh is the Creator God being discussed by Buddha here. Here is the Sutta
Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation
Basically the Creator God had come to believe (under the influence of Mara) that He is the Supreme and His realm is the final realm. That he is Omnipotent. Buddha corrects him, shows many beings and realms exist above him and that the final state is the state at which Buddha is, the Unbound state described as "Consciousness without surface, endless all-encompassing and radiant" . Buddha also says many beings do worship this Creator God and hence fall under his power, but he and his disciples as well as the higher beings are beyond the God's reach.

I appreciate the way you communicate, I can follow you . Ok and how did Siddhartha Gautama acquire this information? How do we ( you ) come to have this information. Who gave this information originally. Because were dealing with information and the source of it .

 

[sayak83]

I appreciate the way you communicate, I can follow you . Ok and how did Siddhartha Gautama acquire this information? How do we ( you ) come to have this information. Who gave this information originally. Because were dealing with information and the source of it .

Its from the Middle Length Discourses, one of the many discourses that Buddha gave that were recorded by the direct disciples of Buddha (according to their tradition). As part of the Nikayas, its considered (by secular historians) to be part of the Buddhist scripture that is closest historically to Buddha. I am not using Mahayana texts as they are considered later writings by secular historians.

 

[John1.12]

Its from the Middle Length Discourses, one of the many discourses that Buddha gave that were recorded by the direct disciples of Buddha (according to their tradition). As part of the Nikayas, its considered (by secular historians) to be part of the Buddhist scripture that is closest historically to Buddha. I am not using Mahayana texts as they are considered later writings by secular historians.

But specifically how was this information given or acquired?

 

[John1.12]

Its from the Middle Length Discourses, one of the many discourses that Buddha gave that were recorded by the direct disciples of Buddha (according to their tradition). As part of the Nikayas, its considered (by secular historians) to be part of the Buddhist scripture that is closest historically to Buddha. I am not using Mahayana texts as they are considered later writings by secular historians.

More specifically how did Buddha receive the information? was it given to him participatory or was knowledge of sorts given to him from other writings and such ?

 

[sayak83]

More specifically how did Buddha receive the information? was it given to him participatory or was knowledge of sorts given to him from other writings and such ?

You did not read the scripture. He actually went to heaven and talked with the Creator God.
On a more general level, the knowledge that Buddha shared and other Buddhas before and after had is something that is always there in us. Its simply obscured at the conscious level because we get distracted by the worldly life. Once the distractions are removed by practice, the knowledge we always had becomes apparent at the conscious level. Its like stars in the sky. They are eternally there, but get obscured by the lights of the city. Once you move away from the city lights, you see and realize that they were always there.

 

[John1.12]

You did not read the scripture. He actually went to heaven and talked with the Creator God.
On a more general level, the knowledge that Buddha shared and other Buddhas before and after had is something that is always there in us. Its simply obscured at the conscious level because we get distracted by the worldly life. Once the distractions are removed by practice, the knowledge we always had becomes apparent at the conscious level. Its like stars in the sky. They are eternally there, but get obscured by the lights of the city. Once you move away from the city lights, you see and realize that they were always there.

Apologies, let me go back and read ...

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Which historical figure , religious or otherwise is / was the most trustworthy .

Certainly not Jesus.

We have no proof he lived--no writings from him, no archeological evidence of him, no evidence of the purported apostles who supposedly accompanied him. We have zero, zilch evidence for the Jesus of the gospels--which are just basically religious advertisements for people to join a faith. What is pretty plain to see IMHO is that Jesus is merely an avatar; a mascot for the Christian faith in the same way that a dolphin is an avatar for the football team, Miami dolphins. There may have been someone in 30 CE who was a revolutionary named Yeshua who was crucified but we have no proof even of that. Most historians just accept there had to be someone upon which the Jesus avatar was based.

Jesus lives only in the minds of those who believe he is real. My opinion, of course.

 

[John1.12]

Certainly not Jesus.

We have no proof he lived--no writings from him, no archeological evidence of him, no evidence of the purported apostles who supposedly accompanied him. We have zero, zilch evidence for the Jesus of the gospels--which are just basically religious advertisements for people to join a faith. What is pretty plain to see IMHO is that Jesus is merely an avatar; a mascot for the Christian faith in the same way that a dolphin is an avatar for the football team, Miami dolphins. There may have been someone in 30 CE who was a revolutionary named Yeshua who was crucified but we have no proof even of that. Most historians just accept there had to be someone upon which the Jesus avatar was based.

Jesus lives only in the minds of those who believe he is real. My opinion, of course.

//lived--no writings from him , no archeological evidence of him// Youve not read the bible have you ? come on this is a silly question given the narrative.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

//lived--no writings from him , no archeological evidence of him// Youve not read the bible have you ? come on this is a silly question given the narrative.

Of course I've read the Bible--as a Christian for 60 years before investigating its origins and the shady shenanigans surrounding its development. I know for example, perhaps you don't, that the Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw what Jesus was speaking. How on earth did those scholars, writing 40-100 years after Jesus died, know the precise words Jesus was speaking in the gospels? Even trying to believe John could remember all 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus after 60 years is completely unbelievable. Can you remember word-perfect the last debate you watched? It's completely unrealistic to suspect the words you are reading are Jesus' when the writers weren't even eyewitnesses to Jesus' last 3 years.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Here is just one verse that is said to be a promise immediately to everyone who places their trust on Jesus for their salvation.
John 7:38

“He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”

And in Matt 11
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

What Jesus offers is tangible . Because he still lives ( as the bible declares) .

What does John 7:38 actually mean?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Why would you say Muhammad's life compared with Jesus s life shows equal trustworthiness? Assuming you have read their accounts ?
Muhammed was not sinless ( again if we accept equally both claims as true and accurate )

So sinlessness is an additional criterion to those you mentioned in your OP?

 

[John1.12]

So sinlessness is an additional criterion to those you mentioned in your OP?

If i compare the life of Muhammed and the life of Jesus ( in the bible ) There really is no comparison in whom I should trust . And yes Jesus having never sinned is a quality in which I know I can trust in .I cannot say this about Muhammed ..He may have been sincere in what he believed he experienced but I cannot say I trust him as a reliable Judge on what his experiences were .To trust in his ability to discern ' spiritual matters, discerning if he really did receive revelation from God ,and not a demonic spirit ( as the bible warns can happen) I cannot say I trust that Muhammed knew the validity of what happened to him . When I look at Jesus however, there is no comparison.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

And yes Jesus having never sinned is a quality in which I know I can trust in

How are you defining sin?

He may have been sincere in what he believed he experienced but I cannot say I trust him as a reliable Judge on what his experiences where , his ability to discern ' spiritual matters, discerning if he really did receive revelation from God and not a demonic spirit ( as the bible warns can happen.

Why can you not trust him as a reliable judge of what his experiences were?

 

[John1.12]

How are you defining sin?



Why can you not trust him as a reliable judge of what his experiences were?

Sin is transgression of the law . Its ' missing the Mark. The bible says ( apart from Jesus) All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God . Rom 3

 

[John1.12]

How are you defining sin?



Why can you not trust him as a reliable judge of what his experiences were?

//Why can you not trust him as a reliable judge of what his experiences were?// Because I trust the bible and therfore trust Jesus words in the bible. Muhammed contradicts what the bible says. Jesus own words also contradict s Muhammad's words . Yes he could have be sincere. But as his testimony contradicts Jesus, I believe he was deceived . Sincere, but sincerely wrong . He's not the first to be deceived. If I look at Joseph Smith, he too was visited by an ' angel ' who also gave him ' revelation ' but I believe it wasn't from God .

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Sin is transgression of the law . Its ' missing the Mark. The bible says ( apart from Jesus) All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God . Rom 3

But Jesus (pbuh) is said to have broken a number of biblical commandments - this webpage gives some notable examples.

 

[John1.12]

But Jesus (pbuh) is said to have broken a number of biblical commandments - this webpage gives some notable examples.

Not according to this verse .
2 Corinthians 5:21

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

 

[The_Fisher_King]

//Why can you not trust him as a reliable judge of what his experiences were?// Because I trust the bible and therfore trust Jesus words in the bible. Muhammed contradicts what the bible says. Jesus own words also contradict s Muhammad's words . Yes he could have be sincere. But as his testimony contradicts Jesus, I believe he was deceived . Sincere, but sincerely wrong . He's not the first to be deceived. If I look at Joseph Smith, he too was visited by an ' angel ' who also gave him ' revelation ' but I believe it wasn't from God .

But you are not then taking the accounts of Islam at face value, which I thought was what you said you were doing in your OP, unless I have misunderstood? It then becomes simply a question of which text you believe.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Not according to this verse .
2 Corinthians 5:21

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Have you actually looked at the link I gave you? What would be your response to each of the instances in that link?

 

[John1.12]

Have you actually looked at the link I gave you? What would be your response to each of the instances in that link?

Did you read point 1 ) lol . Are you seriously saying someone who doesn't marry and have Children is sinning? lol And its not 'law ' It was a command to Adam and so forth to populate the earth. The creator of the universe ( Jesus) The one who created the sabbath is not sinning when he works on the sabbath. Plus its a misunderstanding of the sabbath requirements.